View Post [edit]
Poster: | Moongleam | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 9:31am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Please remove |
http://www.archive.org/post/341047/100-movies-in-the-public-domain
video-Cellar says that the following aren't pd:
http://www.archive.org/details/M_
http://www.archive.org/details/Metropolis1925-LongerVersion
http://www.archive.org/details/Metropolis1925-ShorterVersion
http://www.archive.org/details/theblueangel1930
http://www.archive.org/details/Escape_From_Sobibor.avi
http://www.archive.org/details/The.Brother.From.Another.Planet
http://www.archive.org/details/Death_Rides_A_Horse_pan_and_scan
http://www.archive.org/details/DeathRidesAHorse
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 3:17pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-06 23:16:44
This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-06 23:17:48
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:13pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Mystic550 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 5:25pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
http://www.archive.org/post/259617/metropolis-is-back-in-the-public-domain
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 6:27pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:03pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:08pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
According to that you're wrong. Where do you get your basis for that interpretation. Can you reference any statement to the contrary?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:15pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
What part of that section restores movies? None of it.
What part of that section restores copyrights? All of it.
but you can always look at the copyright offices informative circular on GATT/URAA copyright restoration here
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:53pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
It simply means that in the section that all uses of the term “restored copyright” means copyright in a restored work.
In fact the section is entitled § 104A. Copyright in restored works.
Also, § 104A (1) (a) (A) Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration.
To even think for a moment that there is any implication that the law restores a film is absurd.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 8:58pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 04:58:22
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 2:52am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Well beside the fact this law is ex post facto and violates equal protection, it is also inconsistent with current copyright law which makes it all null and void.
But I do clearly understand that. The enactment of Pub. L. No. 103-465 was a the application of such a provision to this circumstance. And it seems a Federal judge agrees with that. And even though popular opinion may have been wrong as to the definition of 'restored works' (as pointed out in that blog link about One-Eyed Jack), it is obvious that you've read a lot of this for the first time as well. Maybe we should both rely on actual sources rather than poor interpretations found on sites like wikipedia, which by the way states that M and Metropolis are in the public domain. That being the case coupled with this poorly written law is enough to absolve anyone of copyright infringement as they would not be willfully infringing as there are enough references dated after 1996 that claim these movies are public domain so as to be public knowledge.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:41am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
The fact that wikipedia or popular opinion lists a film as PD does not replace good due diligence practice. Wikipedia is not a good or valid source for copyright research. Ignorance of copyright status is not a valid defence against copyright infringement, especially when the owners of the copyright have done all they legally have to do to make their ownership known.
When people are going to use work without authorisation, they should do some diligent, documented copyright research or get proper advice. I don't understand how any company that uses these films commercially can be covered by any sort of IP insurance if they disregard the need for due diligence and prefer to rest on naive and scewered readings of the law. If they are not covered, they are simply asking for trouble.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 6:26pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:38am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 11:38:28
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:19am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:36am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Blade_Runner | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 1:49pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | FGlenF | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 6:11pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Death Rides A Horse,
Escape From Sobibor (1987),
M (1931),
Metropolis (1927),
The Brother From Another Planet (1984)
were all in the list of the 100 films that are "PD"
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 7:58pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 6:22pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
So, unless overturned on appeal, these movies will remain in the public domain in the United States.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 7:59pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
(4) The term "reliance party" means any person who -
(A) with respect to a particular work, engages in acts,
before the source country of that work becomes an eligible
country, which would have violated section 106 if the restored work had been subject to copyright protection, and who, after the source country becomes an eligible country, continues to engage in such acts;
(B) before the source country of a particular work becomes an eligible country, makes or acquires 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of that work; or
(C) as the result of the sale or other disposition of a derivative work covered under subsection (d)(3), or significant assets of a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), is asuccessor, assignee, or licensee of that person.
So basically, if you weren't a commercial user in 1995 (or earlier) of the previously public domain work who lives in Colorado, your first ammendment rights have not been found to be violated.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 6:33pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-06 22:49:13
This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-07 02:33:09
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:50pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 00:50:18
Attachment: Copyright_Notice_Brother_From_Another_Planet.jpg
Attachment: Copyright_Notice_Death_Rides_a_Horse_1.jpg
Attachment: Copyright_Notice_Escape_from_Sobibor.jpg
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:22pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | bizzarobrian | Date: | Jan 26, 2012 7:58am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:32pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
If the film's copyright is restored (which means reinstated) by section 104 of the copyright Act then the copyright is restored to all copies of the film regardless of their quality or appearance.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 6:17pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
The American copyright had lapsed in 1953, which eventually led to a proliferation of versions being released on video. Along with other foreign-made works, the film's U.S. copyright was restored in 1998,[18] but the constitutionality of this copyright extension was challenged in Golan v. Gonzales and as Golan v. Holder it was ruled that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests."[19] The case is on appeal.
So that's settles it. Public domain in the U.S.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 7:47pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
(4) The term "reliance party" means any person who -
(A) with respect to a particular work, engages in acts,
before the source country of that work becomes an eligible
country, which would have violated section 106 if the restored work had been subject to copyright protection, and who, after the source country becomes an eligible country, continues to engage in such acts;
(B) before the source country of a particular work becomes an eligible country, makes or acquires 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of that work; or
(C) as the result of the sale or other disposition of a derivative work covered under subsection (d)(3), or significant assets of a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), is asuccessor, assignee, or licensee of that person.
So basically, if you weren't a commercial user in 1995 (or earlier) of the previously public domain work who lives in Colorado, your first ammendment rights have not been found to be violated.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | guyzilla | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 9:16pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 5:05pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
And it has been believed since 1984 that this film is in the public domain and no one affiliated with the film has stated otherwise.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 7:42pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Transfer 1
The brother from another planet;
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V3475D700
Date of Recordation: 2001-10-26
Entire Copyright Document: V3475 D700 P1
Date of Execution: as of 1Jan91; date of cert.: 22Oct01
Title: The brother from another planet; motion picture.
Notes: Assignment.
Party 1: A Train films, Inc.
Party 2: John Sayles.
Names: Sayles, John
A Train films, Inc.
Transfer 2
The brother from another planet;
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V3475D696
Date of Recordation: 2001-10-26
Entire Copyright Document: V3475 D696 P1
Date of Execution: as of 20Mar96; date of cert.: 22Oct01
Title: The brother from another planet; motion picture.
Notes: Assignment.
Party 1: John Sayles.
Party 2: Anarchists Convention, Inc.
Names: Sayles, John
Anarchists Convention, Inc.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 2:46am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:10am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
17 USC §101
Considering the film makers set up a corporation to "own" their contributions to the film, I think we can consider it meeting the requirements of the second condition.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:25am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
The brother who fell to earth : a.k.a. Brother from another planet /...
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V3475D695
Date of Recordation: 2001-10-26
Entire Copyright Document: V3475 D695 P1
Date of Execution: as of 25Aug83
Title: The brother who fell to earth : a.k.a. Brother from another planet / Screenplay.
Notes: Assignment.
Party 1: John Sayles.
Party 2: A Train Films, Inc.
Variant title: Brother from another planet
Names: Sayles, John
A Train Films, Inc.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:45am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V2037P799
Date of Recordation: 1983-12-27
Entire Copyright Document: V2037P799-802
Date of Execution: 16Sep83; 15Dec83
Title: The Brother who fell to earth; motion picture.
Notes: Security agreenment (motion picture and copyright)
Party 1: A-Train Films.
Party 2: Screen Actors Guild, Inc.
so shouldn't it have said copyright Screen Actors Guild, Inc.?
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 3:47am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 4:00am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
These VHS releases -
Key Video (1986, discontinued)
Fox Home Video (1990, discontinued)
UAV (1999, discontinued)
These DVD versions -
UAV (2001, Discontinued)
MGM Home Entertainment (2003, Authorised restoration. In print)
Guillotine Films (2003, Discontinued)
Digital 1 Stop (2004, Discontinued)
EastWest DVD (2007, Discontinued)
Amazon also has user uploaded "createspace" Made On Demand DVD-Rs available from "Synergy Entertainment" and "Artflix".
As most of these labels are still in business, one could easily assume that they had somehow learned of the copyright status of the film.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 7, 2011 4:21am |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:14pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
In another country that might not be the case, but it is in the United States. If you have found some other U.S. law that states otherwise, please provide a reference.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 4:23pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
The only references in the act to restoration are to the restoration of copyright. Copyright law has no interest in whether a copy of a film has been restored in the remastered and made look pretty sense. Even if no copies of a Gatt-restored film continued to exist the copyright was restored to protect the filmic work that would be contained in prints if they still existed.
You are on the wrong track if you are looking for a loophole.
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 5:13pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
Reply [edit]
Poster: | Video-Cellar | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 7:27pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |
(5) The term "restored copyright" means copyright in a restored work under this section.
(6) The term "restored work" means an original work of authorship that—
(A) is protected under subsection (a);
(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—
(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;
(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or
(iii) lack of national eligibility;
(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and
(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.
Nothing about the work having to be "restored" in the repaired sense. All references to a "restored work" in the act refer to a work that qualifies to have its copyright restored under that section. Nothing more. Nothing less. The definition leaves no room to read anything else into the meaning of "restored work".
Reply [edit]
Poster: | cooperway4 | Date: | Jan 6, 2011 5:33pm |
Forum: | feature_films | Subject: | Re: Please remove |